What is the "Commonwealth of Australia"?

[OzWaveGuy]

Do you really know what the "Commonwealth of Australia" actually is?

Try: ACN = 122104616​

Look it up on:

http://www.asic.gov.au​

Or Search

http://www.sec.gov/ for "Commonwealth of Australia" - the Company Address is C/O the Australian Embassy in Washington DC
​

Or Search

Dun&BradStreet http://www.dnb.com/ for "Commonwealth of Australia"​

CofA is actually a Company.

In fact many councils, police departments, state governments, ATO, RBA etc are in fact companies. Interesting, since many Australians would have assumed many of these entities would not be companies but belong to the people of Australia.

For example NSW Police is a company, and possibly owned by an overseas entity - I haven't confirmed this, but maybe someone on this forum knows and can clarify. The implications of overseas ownership could indeed open up a range of problems and conflicts of interest.

This is only a start of a very deep rabbit hole on why Australian Federal and State Government entities are companies (the same can be seen in the UK, Canada, US, Singapore...)

So when you receive that bill in the mail from one of Government Agencies - in fact a registered company (perhaps without reporting requirements according to ASIC), what could some of the legal and enforcement implications be - anyone researched this?

Interested on what people out there know.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

If you are dealing with a "Company", then for a commercial relationship to lawfully exist there must be a contract in place that requires the two (or more) parties be in consent. Consent can made in many ways (perhaps unknowingly by using common language) and this is where it can become very confusing as in many cases consent has already been provided and agreement to transact has been established - even by not doing anything.

This interesting video from the UK provides some insight on the use of common law and refusing to "contract" with the Court (in fact a corporate court) over a Council Tax dispute. As you can see, the court tries to gain jurisdiction several times throughout the proceedings but consent is never provided.

A contract doesn't exist and no lawful action can be taken - even when the police are called, but are asked to stand under their common law oath and they soon realise that the lay adviser is not breaking the law and is free to continue with the proceedings....

 

[prawn_86]

Similar to what Zeitgeist was saying about how supposedly in USA you dont actually have to pay income tax.

OWG, what do you think the impliactions here are? DOes it means the laws are not applicable if what you have found if the case?

 

[kotim]

I am in law enforcement and I am looking at that sort of stuff, as I don't believe many things should be enforced the way we do, but beside that my study is slowly revealing that everythign is a contractual arrangement, whether we know it or not and in fact if you look at the the laws that relate to commerce you will see that, anyone for eg who does business with a commercial entity also is in the business of commerce, so when you go to woolies and buy something off them you are engaged in commerce and whether you realsise it not you then become subject to the laws of commerce.

Why do you thing the law says ignorance of the law is no excuse, its their becasue we are beleived to be knowing what we are doing first and foremost.

It is a very interesting discussion and I have seen adn known people who have used it in minor ways to achieve a little bit of success with government and business. No doubt as they get better at it thee success will be larger.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Similar to what Zeitgeist was saying about how supposedly in USA you dont actually have to pay income tax.

This may be true, since the US is under common law.

OWG, what do you think the impliactions here are? DOes it means the laws are not applicable if what you have found if the case?

I must admit that law is quite a fascinating subject, but many avoid researching to any depth because it is so complex and a solicitor is usually required as a legal adviser should you find yourself in court or wading through the legal system.

Statutes and Acts could/are considered as company policies or rules, hence if you work for a company then you agree to follow company policy and rules (usually standing under the Employment contract that you would agree to uphold) and therefore jurisdiction has been established.

For example, working as a Bank Teller you may not be permitted to hold personal cash when serving customers otherwise you may be seen to have compromised your position by doing so . As a result, the manager will probably need to investigate if the personal cash is the bank's once the balancing has been done at the end of the day etc

However, as a customer of the bank, you are free to hold cash as you're outside the bank's policy for employees - eg you don't have a contract of employment and therefore the bank has no jurisdiction.​

The implication of adopting/not adopting such rules depending whether you see yourself as an "employee" of the bank or a "customer" can be far reaching in the legal system we have today - and as shown in the video above.

More later...

 

[OzWaveGuy]

my study is slowly revealing that everythign is a contractual arrangement, whether we know it or not and in fact if you look at the the laws that relate to commerce you will see that, anyone for eg who does business with a commercial entity also is in the business of commerce

Exactly.

It also appears that the courts are operating under Maritime Law (v's common law which is a law of the land). Maritime Law is commerce and contract law, hence, if you consent to enter the court, you are actually boarding a ship in a legal sense.

In this video, @4:15 the lay adviser calls out "Man Overboard" as the magistrates abandon the court

Also, @ 6:35 the magistrate need "to seek legal advice" when they refuse to stand under their oath.

 

[wayneL]

Awesome OWG!

I followed this "Freeman on the Land" stuff for a while. I must say it's nice to see those pompous ~~~~s squirm.

And it's interesting the difference between statute law and common law.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

And it's interesting the difference between statute law and common law.

Thanks Wayne. What's intriguing is the language aspect of Statute law and this is the "trick" usually used to fool one into consent.

eg Person, Understand, MR, MRS, Legal, Lawful, Officer, YOUR NAME

When a police officer, traffic infringement officer etc stop you and claim you have driven illegally or broken the law in some way - they usually ask you if you "understand" the offence. Most will probably say "yes" and then try to negotiate a way out. But, that's it. Done. You have effectively said I stand under those charges and have contracted/consented.

 

[disarray]

my lawyer mate says the commonwealth of australia is a sovereign nation but it has created a legal entity to operate under for various reasons - possibly to employ people under (as the queen doesn't hire people directly), to limit liability of the sovereign, to claim the name, to make administration easier and so on.

the commonwealth of australia we live in, and whose laws we are subject to, is a sovereign nation which was created by constitution. all legislative and executive power flows from the constitution which recognises the queen as head of state with the governor general acting in her place.

the name of the company isn't anything special. it's just what they called it.

 

[inq]

Shhhh you're ruining the conspiracy theory he's trying to perpetuate.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

my lawyer mate says the commonwealth of australia is a sovereign nation but it has created a legal entity to operate under for various reasons

Correct - it's the "various reasons" that's at the heart of the matter. I could understand if there was an entity in the Government to handle transactions - eg Treasury.

 

[wayneL]

Shhhh you're ruining the conspiracy theory he's trying to perpetuate.

Ahh the the old dunderklumpen straw man tactic of lumping everything under conspiracy theory.

Brain switched off.

There is no conspiracy theory here, just points of law which are not transparent.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Ahh the the old dunderklumpen straw man tactic of lumping everything under conspiracy theory.

Brain switched off.

There is no conspiracy theory here, just points of law which are not transparent.

A leading internet analyst firm a few years ago published some stats on the types of people that participate in online forums/Social Media sites. They estimated approximately 19% of paricipants were nearly always critical and provided infrequent value to others in the specified forum.

I kinda thought 19% was a little high, but I don't have any issue with adding these types of "infrequent value entities" to my ignore list.

 

[disarray]

Correct - it's the "various reasons" that's at the heart of the matter. I could understand if there was an entity in the Government to handle transactions - eg Treasury.

well you'd pick a body and see how it was created. take the ATO (which would be a most popular choice) for example. how was it created?

google give us Australian Tax History from the ATO which says tax was first levied by the states (australia being a federation of states) then ...

By 1900 all colonies were collecting income tax, often by different methods and at different rates. It wasn't until 1915 that the Fisher Commonwealth Government introduced an act for income tax to be collected by the Commonwealth, although States were still also collecting some income tax.

so if it's an act then it was passed by both houses of parliament and signed off on by the gg. the corporation CofA wasn't involved at all, it was a constitutionally empowered piece of legislation that bought in the ATO v1.0 and the regulations we are subject to. so when dealing with the ATO you are dealing with the sovereign.

so whatever body you were looking at you'd check if it created as an act of legislation, or by a legislative body, or whatever or check if its functions (such as employment etc.) been outsourced to the CofA corporation and go from there.

any body made by an act of parliament and signed off on by the gg is sovereign and subject to the constitution. any body created (like commissions) you'd see under what powers it was created and who created it. regulatory bodies? you'd think as they are created under the auspices of an act they'd be sovereign but buggered if i know. look it up

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Let's talk about Acts since they are used repeatedly by Government and companies.

Think of Acts as a company policy. Acts are not Law but they are given the force of the law in order to accomplish the stated objectives. Acts can only work if there is consent - hence, Acts are able to be enforced and use the full force of the law once consent is provided - because in simple terms a contract is in place.

When dealing with Government, who are you dealing with? A company? or a true government entity that's stated objective is to serve and protect the people? Most will be dealing with a company since you will be very likely dealing with an Act (eg Traffic Act) that requires your consent to contract.

To add to this, I'll confuse you a little: You are not YOUR NAME. In fact, YOUR NAME is a legal entity - YOUR NAME was registered at birth - and thus creating a legal entity with YOUR NAME: eg named MR JOHN SMITH.

It is this legal entity (or legal fiction) that is addressed in all correspondance and therefore you (as a human being) accept liability or the "offer" to contract when using your legal fiction NAME. This can be done because you have effectively said I am MR JOHN SMITH, I am registered to you and thus agree to the rules of the "company".

Therefore, is is very easy to use the legal system to contract and to have the force of the law enforce such contracts.

This presentation provides some further clarity for those wanting to explore how this system has been developed and used. The presentation is from the UK.

 

[rexiedexie]

Please view this video for information

Or

Via Youtube


Australia Is Under EVIL threat. We must fight back.

Do you really know what the "Commonwealth of Australia" actually is?

Try: ACN = 122104616​

Look it up on:

http://www.asic.gov.au​

Or Search

http://www.sec.gov/ for "Commonwealth of Australia" - the Company Address is C/O the Australian Embassy in Washington DC
​

Or Search

Dun&BradStreet http://www.dnb.com/ for "Commonwealth of Australia"​

CofA is actually a Company.

In fact many councils, police departments, state governments, ATO, RBA etc are in fact companies. Interesting, since many Australians would have assumed many of these entities would not be companies but belong to the people of Australia.

For example NSW Police is a company, and possibly owned by an overseas entity - I haven't confirmed this, but maybe someone on this forum knows and can clarify. The implications of overseas ownership could indeed open up a range of problems and conflicts of interest.

This is only a start of a very deep rabbit hole on why Australian Federal and State Government entities are companies (the same can be seen in the UK, Canada, US, Singapore...)

So when you receive that bill in the mail from one of Government Agencies - in fact a registered company (perhaps without reporting requirements according to ASIC), what could some of the legal and enforcement implications be - anyone researched this?

Interested on what people out there know.

 

[McLovin]

Wow, what a BS thread.

 

[pixel]

Wow, what a BS thread.

+1
waste of time!